Jupiter Perps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what RSI is and its interpretation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as computational requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., single value vs. time series). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key details (RSI definition, ranges, thresholds) before providing usage tips. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good foundational context on RSI and parameter usage, but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, error cases) and does not fully compensate for the absence of structured data. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for comprehensive tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters (asset, interval, period, limit). The description adds some semantic context by explaining common period values (7, 14, 21) for different trading styles, which complements the schema. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as explaining interactions between parameters or additional constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool calculates the Relative Strength Index (RSI), specifying it's a momentum oscillator that measures overbought/oversold conditions. It distinguishes from siblings like get_indicator_atr or get_indicator_macd by focusing specifically on RSI, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage by explaining RSI ranges (0-100) and thresholds (above 70 for overbought, below 30 for oversold), and suggests common period values for different trading styles (7 for scalping, 14 for day trading, 21 for swing trading). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other indicators (e.g., MACD or Bollinger Bands) or mention any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.